{
  "id": 1573299,
  "name": "State National Bank v. Lark",
  "name_abbreviation": "State National Bank v. Lark",
  "decision_date": "1918-06-03",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "432",
  "last_page": "435",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "134 Ark. 432"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "82 Ark. 561",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "85 Ark. 483",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "63 S. W. 461",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "36 Conn. 220",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Conn.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "109 Ark. 355",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "111 Ark. 550",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1540442
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/111/0550-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "112 Ark. 236",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1538816
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/112/0236-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 386,
    "char_count": 5333,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.525,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.05883354589398841
    },
    "sha256": "954238192aca2059276262fc1374bf37ceab562524f1f50b6bf809080725af43",
    "simhash": "1:d0bb0cb9e9ebec28",
    "word_count": 930
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:26:23.573803+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "State National Bank v. Lark."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "WOOD, J.\nThis action was brought in the justice court by appellee against appellant. Appellant paid a check and charged same to account of appellee. The check is as follows:\n\u2018 \u2018 Texarkana, Texas, March 13, 1917.\n\u201cTHE STATE NATIONAL BANK.\nPay to Mack Wesley or Bearer......................................................$75.00\nSeventy-five ...................................................................................................Dollars\nAnderson Lark.\nOn the back on the check appear the following, endorsements :\n\u201cMack Wesley, Gen. Puller.\nPiled April 10th, 1917.\nJ. S. Draper, J. P.\u201d\nThere were no written pleadings. It was claimed by the appellee that the check was drawn for $7.50 and that it was raised by the forgery of one Mack Wesley to $75; that the bank therefore owed appellee the difference of $67.50, for which he asked judgment.\nThe appellant contends that the check was not a forgery but was drawn for the amount specified on its face, and there was ample testimony to support this contention.\nWitness Wheeler testified for the appellee, that he \"was assistant connty attorney at Bowie Connty, Texas; that he filed a complaint against Mack Wesley for the forgery and' held a preliminary trial and bound him over to the grand jury and presented the papers to the grand jury. Witness was asked: \u201cWhat became of it'there, and where is he now?\u201d Answer. \u201cWell I don\u2019t know where he is; his appearance bond was forfeited.\u201d\nAt this juncture Mr. Arnold, attorney for the appellant, interposed an .objection as follows: \u201cThey can not strengthen their case by any evidence of that sort. The evidence, as I understand it, would have to be directed to this instrument here. He arrested somebody for this or something else and he ran away; I don\u2019t think that it is competent at all.\u201d\nThe court overruled the objection, to which ruling of the court the defendant at the time excepted and asked that his exceptions be noted of record, which was done.\nThe witness then proceeded to testify, over the objection of appellant, that Mack Wesley was bound over for forgery and forfeited his bond; that he was a fugitive from justice.\nAppellant duly objected and excepted to the ruling of the court in allowing this testimony to go to the jury. As to whether or not the court was correct in thus ruling is the only issue presented on this appeal.\nIt was, of course, competent for the appellee to prove that the check in suit was a forged instrument, but this he could not do by evidence tending to prove conduct in the nature of a confession on the part of Mack Wesley that he had forged the instrument.\nAs between appellant and \u25a0 appellee in this action Mack Wesley was a third party and testimony tending to prove his acts or declarations concerning the check in suit falls strictly within the ban of the rule against hearsay testimony. In the recent case of Brown v. State, post p. 597, we said, quoting from Tillman v. State, 112 Ark. 236 (where the question is thoroughly discussed): \u201cDeclarations or confessions of guilt by third parties fall within the rule against hearsay testimony and. are not admissible.\u201d\nThe ruling of the court permitted the appellee by hearsay testimony to get the benefit of collateral facts which were highly prejudicial to the appellant. See 1 G-reenleaf on Evidence, sec. 52.\nFor the error indicated the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WOOD, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. H. Arnold, W. H. Arnold, Jr., and David C. Arnold, for appellant.",
      "Pratt P. Bacon and Wheeler S Wheeler, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "State National Bank v. Lark.\nOpinion delivered June 3, 1918.\nEvidence \u2014 forgery\u2014acts and confession of a party accused. \u2014 Appellee drew a check on appellant bank in favor of one W. Appellant paid the check for $75; appellee claimed that W. had raised the check from $7.50, and sued appellant for the difference. Held, it was improper for the court to permit appellee to introduce evidence that W. 'had been indicted for forgery, had forfeited his bond and was now a fugitive from justice.\nAppeal from Miller Circuit Court; Geo. R. Hay vie, Judge;\nreversed.\nW. H. Arnold, W. H. Arnold, Jr., and David C. Arnold, for appellant.\n1. The check was not a forgery. There were no erasures nor interlineations, nor evidence of any change in the original check as drawn.\n2. The acts and admissions of Wesley and Holland were improperly admitted. The testimony was incompetent. G-reenleaf on Evidence, \u00a7 \u00a7 52, 171, 190,196; 111 Ark. 550: 103 Id. 522; 78 Id, 55; 105 Id. 130; 83 Id. 186; 107 Id. 601; 114 Id. 267, 277; 113 Id. 417; 91 Id. 555; 100 Id. 321; 108 Id. 489; 92 Id. 159; 97 Id. 420; 105 Id. 247;. 89 Id. 77, and many others.\nPratt P. Bacon and Wheeler S Wheeler, for appellee.\n1. The testimony shows the check to be a forgery.\n2. Wheeler\u2019s testimony as to the acts of Wesley and Holland was properly admitted. The testimony was not incompetent and no proper objections were saved to its admission. Nor did the court rule on the objection. 109 Ark. 355; 94 Icl. 68. A mere exception is not sufficient. 74 Id. 259; 126 Id. 359; 127 Id. 58.\nSee also as to the admissibility of Wheeler\u2019s testimony, 11 A. & E. Ene. L. 507; 36 Conn. 220; 63 S. W. 461; Bradner on Ev., pp. 13-16-17; Greenleaf on Ev., p. 53, note 1 p. 70, par 108 note; Wharton on Ev. \u00a7 258; 85 Ark. 483; 48 Id. 333; 20 Id. 225; 43 Id. 102; 16 Cyc. 952; 17 Id. 274; 11 A. & E. Enc. 503. The objection to the evidence was general. 82 Ark. 561; 90 Id. 485; 112 Id. 329."
  },
  "file_name": "0432-01",
  "first_page_order": 456,
  "last_page_order": 459
}